Kommersant-Vlast tried to figure out the extent to which external experts influence Moscow’s foreign policy decisions. The feedback turned out to be highly controversial.

The diplomats and
foreign policy experts interviewed by Kommersant-Vlast
yearn for Soviet times, when expert foreign policy support – in addition to the
secret teams of analysts at the Communist Party’s international department, the
KGB and the Foreign Ministry – was provided by academic institutions engaged in
regional studies.

Related:

These were
prestigious and well-paying jobs. In addition to research papers, they wrote
analytical memoranda that went all the way up “to the very top.”

Academic
institutions still write memoranda for the Kremlin, the Foreign Ministry and
other agencies. Yet experts and officials from the Russian Academy of Sciences
(RAS) research institutions and other organizations admit that the system has
been in sharp decline since the collapse of the Soviet Union (the latter have
asked us not to mention their names or the names of the institutes for which
they work).

The main problem
is low pay, which caused an outflow of personnel in the 1990s, and the lack of
funds to buy books and pay for foreign travel.

Our source at the
Kremlin was categorical in his appraisal of the situation: “The product put out
by the academic institutions is outdated. Very little of it is useful.”

The degradation of
academia in the 1990s went hand-in-hand with the overall decline of government
officials’ interest in external assessments.

“The scientists
continued to write things mechanically, and the diplomats continue to read them
mechanically. There were no resources to change anything. Those were lean
times. The country’s potential was not what it is now,” said a high-ranking
diplomat.

As a result,
interest in quality analytical foreign policy support was revived only in the
2000s, when the state once again had the money and the desire to pursue an
active foreign policy.

In this regard,
experts take special note of Dmitry Medvedev’s time as president. On the other
hand, it was during Medvedev’s presidency that a new problem cropped up, says
Vladimir Orlov, director of the Russian
Center for Policy
Studies.

“Government bodies
are showing such an interest in our products that we are simply unable to
satisfy,” said Orlov.

In 2010, Moscow took the first
steps towards creating a competitive market for independent intellectual
products catering to Russian foreign policy. The Kremlin sought expert help in
preparing defense projects, such as the European Security Treaty and the
analysis of Chinese weapons exporters.

“But when you talk
with the specialists at Rosoboronexport, you feel that they are aware of our
main recommendations. In other words, all this is taken into account,” said
Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and
Technologies. Analysts note that, in the last two years, the Kremlin has made
it standard practice to commission research.

The Russian
Institute of Strategic Studies (RISI), created by presidential decree in 2010
and headed by Lieutenant-General Leonid Reshetnikov, is a separate case.
Reshetnikov says that the opinion of RISI analysts is actually taken into
account.

“At least we have
been getting replies to many of our reports from the Administration with the
words ‘Thank you, your opinion will be taken into account’ written in the hand
of the presidential foreign policy adviser. This is very motivating,” said
Reshetnikov. “We get specific assignments, proposals and requests. This is not
a one-way street – we have feedback, which is very important.”

However,
government officials and experts say the number of influential think tanks can
still be counted on one hand. Amongst the organizations dealing with defense
policy, the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies is named as the
undisputed leader by bureaucrats and state corporation managers.

“The key problem
is that interaction with experts is erratic. Personal relations play the most
important role. If an expert and a government official know and trust each
other, they have normal dialogue. But this is sporadic communication, and not a
whole environment,” our source at the Foreign Ministry said.

Experts are
unanimous in their opinion that, in order to solve the problem of analytical
foreign policy support, the state must create a transparent and adequately-funded market in which think tanks can compete.

The Russian
International Affairs Council (RIAC), which has an annual budget of 100 million
rubles ($3.2 million), is contributing to the solution of the problem. Its
managing director, Andrei Kortunov, hopes that RIAC will become the platform
for consolidating Russia’s
current foreign policy expertise and solving systemic problems through
interaction between experts and authorities.

These problems
include the inability of many academics to write memoranda that can help officials
in their practical work, the lack of a long-term strategic vision among
bureaucrats who are concerned with specific tasks, and the lack of alternatives
in working out foreign policy recommendations.